A 1st/2nd ed fan trying to convert to 3.5... [Archive] - Wizards Community

A 1st/2nd ed fan trying to convert to 3.5... [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Tryin2catchup
04-16-07, 09:34 AM Hi, I'm one of those 1st/2nd edition AD&D fans who has finally decided that 3rd ed/3.5 ed has a lot going for it.

I know...I know...I'll save you the trouble of saying it...it took me long enough.

My problem, though, is this: there are a lot of concepts in 1st and 2nd ed that I liked, and I am forever frustrated by the fact that when any new edition comes out, many of those concepts simply go away, never to return. I actually *liked* such kits as the Blade, the Gallant, and the Greenwood Ranger. (Admittedly, though, the Greenwood Ranger as written does seem to have some game balance problems. But I don't think that these are insurmountable.) I also liked first edition's Oriental Adventures, with the Kensai and Yakuza classes. Throw *many* monsters into the mix, and you just about have the jist of my difficulties.

The thing is, I'm a little gun shy about trying to convert these things on my own, without any outside advice. Third edition--and 3.5--strike me as radically different from 1st and 2nd eds. I can't seem to locate the advice I'm seeking any other place on the Web...so...does anyone here have some advice for trying to convert favorite systems from one edition to the other? What I'm shooting for is a mishmash homebrew with lots of character options (...a major selling point of 3.5, if you ask me...) and lots of monsters (...some of which I obviously miss from previous editions.)

Any takers?

Thanks in advance....

Tryin2catchup
Torack
04-16-07, 09:46 AM Most of these kits have been converted and renamed as Prestige Classes.

The mechanics function a little different when it comes to PrCs, but they resemble the equivalent of AD&Ds kits.
starfire311
04-16-07, 09:50 AM Hi, I'm one of those 1st/2nd edition AD&D fans who has finally decided that 3rd ed/3.5 ed has a lot going for it.

I know...I know...I'll save you the trouble of saying it...it took me long enough.

My problem, though, is this: there are a lot of concepts in 1st and 2nd ed that I liked, and I am forever frustrated by the fact that when any new edition comes out, many of those concepts simply go away, never to return. I actually *liked* such kits as the Blade, the Gallant, and the Greenwood Ranger. (Admittedly, though, the Greenwood Ranger as written does seem to have some game balance problems. But I don't think that these are insurmountable.) I also liked first edition's Oriental Adventures, with the Kensai and Yakuza classes. Throw *many* monsters into the mix, and you just about have the jist of my difficulties.

The thing is, I'm a little gun shy about trying to convert these things on my own, without any outside advice. Third edition--and 3.5--strike me as radically different from 1st and 2nd eds. I can't seem to locate the advice I'm seeking any other place on the Web...so...does anyone here have some advice for trying to convert favorite systems from one edition to the other? What I'm shooting for is a mishmash homebrew with lots of character options (...a major selling point of 3.5, if you ask me...) and lots of monsters (...some of which I obviously miss from previous editions.)

Any takers?

Thanks in advance....

Tryin2catchup

here is the big thing, 3E is all about character options already, they have tons of feats, base classes and PrCs, and now with the addition of substitutions levels, just about any concept is achievable, you want to play a greenwood ranger, I am sure it is quite do able, I have no idea what the kit did, but maybe it can be achieved easily with a feat chain or a modification to ranger or scout, via sub levels or maybe it is new PrC time.

All the kits are quite obsolete. Most monsters have been reprinted, and the ones that havent that I like, I have done conversioons myself, after doing a few conversions, it was easy for me to get the hang of it. I can do a fairly balanced conversion pretty quickly, and assign an approximate CR.
Free1983
04-16-07, 10:00 AM All the kits are quite obsolete. Most monsters have been reprinted, and the ones that havent that I like, I have done conversioons myself, after doing a few conversions, it was easy for me to get the hang of it. I can do a fairly balanced conversion pretty quickly, and assign an approximate CR.

This is absolutely true. In the end you can always make your AD&D monster from scratch if you think that you'll bogger it up. Just make a little list of things that make the monster what it is in AD&D, and then follow the guidelines to make new monsters. You can find these guidelines in the MM 3.5 (at the back of the book, behind animals & vermin, I think).

If you're not sure about a monster you have "converted" then you should test it. Ask your buddies to make characters of level 2, 6, 12 & 16 and have a nice evening of monstertesting. This is fun for the players as they can come up with PC's they can just use for a single shot (at least I'm having all these ideas in my head on "what I still want to play, but doesn't get a chance too") and you'll have a chance to test your monster. Use the PC's that approximatley match your monster's CRs. Plus, you and your party will be able to check out the 3.5 combat rules and be able to experiment with those as well.

One last tip. You can always post your converted monster on the monster boards and I'm sure that a lot of people will be more than happy to help you fine-tuning the bestie.

Hope you have a lot of fun,

Cheers
daggeroflath
04-16-07, 10:26 AM Hi, I'm one of those 1st/2nd edition AD&D fans who has finally decided that 3rd ed/3.5 ed has a lot going for it.

Hey there, I'm in the same boat as are many people here. So don't fret, we won't judge you and we understand where you're coming from.

I actually *liked* such kits as the Blade, the Gallant, and the Greenwood Ranger.

I believe I've seen those kits as Prestige Classes. I think the blade and greenwood ranger are in complete warrior. Gallant I'm not sure about, but I think I've seen it somewhere.

I also liked first edition's Oriental Adventures, with the Kensai and Yakuza classes. Throw *many* monsters into the mix, and you just about have the jist of my difficulties.

Well, you're in luck. The Kensai is in the complete warrior and if I recall correctly the 3 Oriental Adventures has a Yakuza class. With 4 MMs and some extra books with monsters, there's now a lot of monsters in 3rd ed too.
mike_beavers
04-16-07, 11:09 AM Im currently working with a guy who wants to convert his 2nd ed game into a third. If you know some body that is conversate with all the editions, maybe he can help walk you through the differences so you can make a decision.

We are doing this through a series of meetings. Last week was the first one and we went through the changes between the editions and my opinion of the the changes entailed and now that current edition emphaized player choices. He asked questions and I answered to the best of my ability. We then generated a character, a basic dwarf fighter, going through the options available for him and progressed him up through 20 levels of fighter. We discussed prestige classes and multiclassing.
Tonight we are doing a wizard and a thief to show things about those classes and will engage in a fight to show the more tactical options in the new edition.

Yes the kensia is in the complete warrior, very nasty in my groups opinion.

Even if you only have the monster manual you can put class options on monsters or templates to create a huge variety
Tryin2catchup
04-18-07, 02:30 PM Thanks everyone for replying!

Prestige classes...hmmm...well...I like them as a general concept, but the thing that bothers me is when former base classes end up as PrCs. I'm not sure what I'm going to do about that...maybe modify current classes, and then rename the existing PrCs.

I looked through my old 1st edition Oriental Adventures book, and there were a lot of class abilities (immunity to fear, ability to cause fear, meditation, etc.) that I don't recall in the new OA. I wonder if those would make good feats?

Speaking of feats, I had an idea for a few feats, and I'd like to get some feedback on the concept. Basically, I'd allow the use of feats to get some (...very minor...) spellcasting ability. It would work like this: you take one feat (...call it what you will...) and get the ability to cast one (...or maybe two...) cantrip(s) one time per day. The feat could be taken multiple times, either to add new uses of the same cantrip, or to get new cantrips. Another feat would do the same thing for first-level spells, provided that two cantrips (or orisons) of the same class could be cast. For example, a fighter takes the first feat twice, once for the cleric spell "Light" and once for "Virtue." The next time he gets a feat slot, he can take "Cure Light Wounds." Of course, such a character has to obey all the spellcasting rules of whatever list they are borrowing from (so a fighter with a taste for arcane magic may well have to carry around a spellbook, for example.) I'm even thinking of creating a third feat, to do essentially the same thing with second-level spells. Has anyone tried this already? Your thoughts?
Bounces
04-18-07, 02:51 PM If you are interested in converting your 2nd edition monsters to 3.0 there is an official conversion manual for that here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a).

Go down to the bottom of the page under classic downloads.

After that you are kind of on your own. WoTC never put out anything official on how to make 3.0 stuff 3.5. There are Accessory Update Manuals here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20030718a) that might help you with it though.
Senevri
04-18-07, 03:13 PM One note: Numbers have gone up. Way up.
- Expect even melee fighters to increase their damage output by an average of 2 points every single level.
- The character that does most combat damage is likely the Rogue, these days.
- Casters are stronger at lower levels, but still dominate on higher levels.
- You can be strong in 2-3 things at once, if you want, or possibly insane in one. Sneaky warriors or casters, warriors who cast spells, spellcasters who can take damage...
Free1983
04-18-07, 03:42 PM Speaking of feats, I had an idea for a few feats, and I'd like to get some feedback on the concept.

If you have more concrete notes on these feats, I'm sure that the guys at the "feats board" will be more than happy to give you feedback. In the meanwhile, I'll give a shot at it.

Although the idea itself (feats that grant you magic) didn't struck me as bad in the first place, the following thought has come up with me. In the 3.5 edition there are lots of ways to accomplish this, multiclassing, PrC's, etc. So I don't think yet another way to do this is that useful, although I must admit that picking a feat is a rather easy way to add a magic touch to your character.

But, I'm afraid you'll have a bit of a style mix up. The thing is that the ways presented make sure that a character gets spellcasting abilities in a kind of realistic way (I know, I'm one of the guys that thinks realism exists in D&D and I'm sure there are a lot of people who don't think realism belongs there, but hey, just my opinion ;)). The prestige classes (or the multiclassing) give a character his spellcasting abilities in flavor and the feats won't be flavorful I fear.

Besides, although 3.5 is ideal for diversification of characters, I still believe that a party has its base concepts (fighter, cleric, rogue & wizard) and that somehow a fighter that gives up its fighting capabilities to do a little wizardry (sp?) is not a big asset to the party. The wizard excels at this, while the fighter is going to bog at it, and at the same time is bogging down its own fighting capacities.

Now this whole argument is only my opinion, so don't hold back if you think it is a good idea and go for it. Just my thoughts. Have fun!
CuttinCurt
04-18-07, 04:24 PM As far as feats allowing you to cast some cantrips. These feats are called, Communicator, Insightful, Necropolis Born, Night Haunt, Soul of the North, and Spell Hand. They allow (3) spells to be cast 1/day each as spell like abilities. As you can see by the names of these feats, they are themed based. And they are more than just cantrips (0-lvl spells.)

Communicator allows: mark, message, and comprehend languages
Insightful allows: detect magic, detect secret doors, and read magic
Necropolis Born allows: cause fear, ghost sound, and touch of fatigue
Night Haunt allows: dancing lights, unseen servant, and prestigination
Soul of the north allows: chill touch, ray of frost, and resistance
spell hand allows: mage hand, tensers floating disk, and open/close

This will give you a good power level on what your feats should give.

CC
Mock26
04-18-07, 06:13 PM There is always the possibility of simply sticking with 1st/2nd edition and incorporating those aspects of 3.0/3.5 that you like. There are still a large number of people out there who play the older versions of D&D. Just remember that throughout all the years the letters D and D have not changed. It matters not if you play Basic, 1st Edition, 2nd Edtion, Version 3.0, Version 3.5, or any hybrid of any of these. What matters is that you are playing D&D!
celtredleg
04-19-07, 12:38 AM Many of the missing monsters are most likely in the Tome of Horors, by Necromancer games. They did a lot of the old ones that did not make the jump. There are also web sites wioth monster conversions already done for you. Some smart person can probably link you.

I went form 1st ed to 3.5 wothout to much trouble.
bartleby42
04-19-07, 02:15 AM ----Feats in order to have minor magical ability

Lucky for you they already exist. In the Complete Arcane, and a few others I think, there are several feats that allow for 2-3 0-level spells (cantrips) 1-3/day and occasionly a 1st level spell once a day. They are grouped by theme, and tend to be both useful and completely useless at the same time. Wonderful, wonderful feats.

----Worring that PrCs are taking over kits

I understand the gut reaction of "A theif-acrobat is an entire progression, not levels 10-20!" but when you think of the sillier examples, like thief acrobat you start to loosen up. The bladesinger was one that almost gave me a heart attack, how can it be quite a neat and flavorful it not only you need to be level 10 to get in, but you don't even have the full bladesong at level 15!

What it does do though, is balance out the power level, considerably. So many of my 2nd ed games started with a few powerhouses (A palidin who was lucky enough to qualify for the samuri kit is memorable) and a theif who quickly became 2~4 levels higher then the rest of the party. Sure the "tough" classes advanced slower, but it still wasn't fair. Those who had bad rolls at charecter creation were punished over and over again for them. Not only did they not have as many abilities, they couldn't qualify for any kits, and then they gained less XP. In 3.X, this doesn't happen. Everyone starts out (more or less) even, and it stays pretty close to even through all 20 levels. The first time you find that PrCs/multiclassing is overpowered, I'll bet you that your PC has just figured out how to make the most of the new system.
Just ride out that one bump and then the parties powerlevel will even out.
Etarnon
04-19-07, 09:48 AM I personally prefer 2nd ed. I don't like all the new changes. At all.

But if you are going to do 3rd ed, scrap everything from 2nd and start from scratch.

Build the best PC you can within 3rd ed.

Good luck.
Malraux
04-19-07, 10:59 AM I'd recommend to play 3rd edition without modifying the rules too much at first. Some of the rules interact in not obvious ways that can cause problems if you change them too quickly.

In addition to the feat mentioned earlier that give some casting ability, Eberron has some feats that give dragonmarks, which give the player spell like abilities.
The Ubbergeek
04-19-07, 11:10 AM I recommend just moving ahead and starting anew - instead of trying to remake the world, take your old ideas and use the new rules as bases - the system is so different and much better at the end.
Oreot
04-19-07, 02:23 PM Yes tome of horrors is great, there is a revised 3.5 edition that is pdf only on the Necromancer site:
http://www.necromancergames.com/products.html

Also you can find alot of good conversions here:
http://www.enworld.org/cc/

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Tryin2catchup 04-16-07, 09:34 AM	Hi, I'm one of those 1st/2nd edition AD&D fans who has finally decided that 3rd ed/3.5 ed has a lot going for it. I know...I know...I'll save you the trouble of saying it...it took me long enough. My problem, though, is this: there are a lot of concepts in 1st and 2nd ed that I liked, and I am forever frustrated by the fact that when any new edition comes out, many of those concepts simply go away, never to return. I actually liked such kits as the Blade, the Gallant, and the Greenwood Ranger. (Admittedly, though, the Greenwood Ranger as written does seem to have some game balance problems. But I don't think that these are insurmountable.) I also liked first edition's Oriental Adventures, with the Kensai and Yakuza classes. Throw many monsters into the mix, and you just about have the jist of my difficulties. The thing is, I'm a little gun shy about trying to convert these things on my own, without any outside advice. Third edition--and 3.5--strike me as radically different from 1st and 2nd eds. I can't seem to locate the advice I'm seeking any other place on the Web...so...does anyone here have some advice for trying to convert favorite systems from one edition to the other? What I'm shooting for is a mishmash homebrew with lots of character options (...a major selling point of 3.5, if you ask me...) and lots of monsters (...some of which I obviously miss from previous editions.) Any takers? Thanks in advance.... Tryin2catchup
Torack 04-16-07, 09:46 AM	Most of these kits have been converted and renamed as Prestige Classes. The mechanics function a little different when it comes to PrCs, but they resemble the equivalent of AD&Ds kits.
starfire311 04-16-07, 09:50 AM	Hi, I'm one of those 1st/2nd edition AD&D fans who has finally decided that 3rd ed/3.5 ed has a lot going for it. I know...I know...I'll save you the trouble of saying it...it took me long enough. My problem, though, is this: there are a lot of concepts in 1st and 2nd ed that I liked, and I am forever frustrated by the fact that when any new edition comes out, many of those concepts simply go away, never to return. I actually liked such kits as the Blade, the Gallant, and the Greenwood Ranger. (Admittedly, though, the Greenwood Ranger as written does seem to have some game balance problems. But I don't think that these are insurmountable.) I also liked first edition's Oriental Adventures, with the Kensai and Yakuza classes. Throw many monsters into the mix, and you just about have the jist of my difficulties. The thing is, I'm a little gun shy about trying to convert these things on my own, without any outside advice. Third edition--and 3.5--strike me as radically different from 1st and 2nd eds. I can't seem to locate the advice I'm seeking any other place on the Web...so...does anyone here have some advice for trying to convert favorite systems from one edition to the other? What I'm shooting for is a mishmash homebrew with lots of character options (...a major selling point of 3.5, if you ask me...) and lots of monsters (...some of which I obviously miss from previous editions.) Any takers? Thanks in advance.... Tryin2catchup here is the big thing, 3E is all about character options already, they have tons of feats, base classes and PrCs, and now with the addition of substitutions levels, just about any concept is achievable, you want to play a greenwood ranger, I am sure it is quite do able, I have no idea what the kit did, but maybe it can be achieved easily with a feat chain or a modification to ranger or scout, via sub levels or maybe it is new PrC time. All the kits are quite obsolete. Most monsters have been reprinted, and the ones that havent that I like, I have done conversioons myself, after doing a few conversions, it was easy for me to get the hang of it. I can do a fairly balanced conversion pretty quickly, and assign an approximate CR.
Free1983 04-16-07, 10:00 AM	All the kits are quite obsolete. Most monsters have been reprinted, and the ones that havent that I like, I have done conversioons myself, after doing a few conversions, it was easy for me to get the hang of it. I can do a fairly balanced conversion pretty quickly, and assign an approximate CR. This is absolutely true. In the end you can always make your AD&D monster from scratch if you think that you'll bogger it up. Just make a little list of things that make the monster what it is in AD&D, and then follow the guidelines to make new monsters. You can find these guidelines in the MM 3.5 (at the back of the book, behind animals & vermin, I think). If you're not sure about a monster you have "converted" then you should test it. Ask your buddies to make characters of level 2, 6, 12 & 16 and have a nice evening of monstertesting. This is fun for the players as they can come up with PC's they can just use for a single shot (at least I'm having all these ideas in my head on "what I still want to play, but doesn't get a chance too") and you'll have a chance to test your monster. Use the PC's that approximatley match your monster's CRs. Plus, you and your party will be able to check out the 3.5 combat rules and be able to experiment with those as well. One last tip. You can always post your converted monster on the monster boards and I'm sure that a lot of people will be more than happy to help you fine-tuning the bestie. Hope you have a lot of fun, Cheers
daggeroflath 04-16-07, 10:26 AM	Hi, I'm one of those 1st/2nd edition AD&D fans who has finally decided that 3rd ed/3.5 ed has a lot going for it. Hey there, I'm in the same boat as are many people here. So don't fret, we won't judge you and we understand where you're coming from. I actually liked such kits as the Blade, the Gallant, and the Greenwood Ranger. I believe I've seen those kits as Prestige Classes. I think the blade and greenwood ranger are in complete warrior. Gallant I'm not sure about, but I think I've seen it somewhere. I also liked first edition's Oriental Adventures, with the Kensai and Yakuza classes. Throw many monsters into the mix, and you just about have the jist of my difficulties. Well, you're in luck. The Kensai is in the complete warrior and if I recall correctly the 3 Oriental Adventures has a Yakuza class. With 4 MMs and some extra books with monsters, there's now a lot of monsters in 3rd ed too.
mike_beavers 04-16-07, 11:09 AM	Im currently working with a guy who wants to convert his 2nd ed game into a third. If you know some body that is conversate with all the editions, maybe he can help walk you through the differences so you can make a decision. We are doing this through a series of meetings. Last week was the first one and we went through the changes between the editions and my opinion of the the changes entailed and now that current edition emphaized player choices. He asked questions and I answered to the best of my ability. We then generated a character, a basic dwarf fighter, going through the options available for him and progressed him up through 20 levels of fighter. We discussed prestige classes and multiclassing. Tonight we are doing a wizard and a thief to show things about those classes and will engage in a fight to show the more tactical options in the new edition. Yes the kensia is in the complete warrior, very nasty in my groups opinion. Even if you only have the monster manual you can put class options on monsters or templates to create a huge variety
Tryin2catchup 04-18-07, 02:30 PM	Thanks everyone for replying! Prestige classes...hmmm...well...I like them as a general concept, but the thing that bothers me is when former base classes end up as PrCs. I'm not sure what I'm going to do about that...maybe modify current classes, and then rename the existing PrCs. I looked through my old 1st edition Oriental Adventures book, and there were a lot of class abilities (immunity to fear, ability to cause fear, meditation, etc.) that I don't recall in the new OA. I wonder if those would make good feats? Speaking of feats, I had an idea for a few feats, and I'd like to get some feedback on the concept. Basically, I'd allow the use of feats to get some (...very minor...) spellcasting ability. It would work like this: you take one feat (...call it what you will...) and get the ability to cast one (...or maybe two...) cantrip(s) one time per day. The feat could be taken multiple times, either to add new uses of the same cantrip, or to get new cantrips. Another feat would do the same thing for first-level spells, provided that two cantrips (or orisons) of the same class could be cast. For example, a fighter takes the first feat twice, once for the cleric spell "Light" and once for "Virtue." The next time he gets a feat slot, he can take "Cure Light Wounds." Of course, such a character has to obey all the spellcasting rules of whatever list they are borrowing from (so a fighter with a taste for arcane magic may well have to carry around a spellbook, for example.) I'm even thinking of creating a third feat, to do essentially the same thing with second-level spells. Has anyone tried this already? Your thoughts?
Bounces 04-18-07, 02:51 PM	If you are interested in converting your 2nd edition monsters to 3.0 there is an official conversion manual for that here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a). Go down to the bottom of the page under classic downloads. After that you are kind of on your own. WoTC never put out anything official on how to make 3.0 stuff 3.5. There are Accessory Update Manuals here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20030718a) that might help you with it though.
Senevri 04-18-07, 03:13 PM	One note: Numbers have gone up. Way up. - Expect even melee fighters to increase their damage output by an average of 2 points every single level. - The character that does most combat damage is likely the Rogue, these days. - Casters are stronger at lower levels, but still dominate on higher levels. - You can be strong in 2-3 things at once, if you want, or possibly insane in one. Sneaky warriors or casters, warriors who cast spells, spellcasters who can take damage...
Free1983 04-18-07, 03:42 PM	Speaking of feats, I had an idea for a few feats, and I'd like to get some feedback on the concept. If you have more concrete notes on these feats, I'm sure that the guys at the "feats board" will be more than happy to give you feedback. In the meanwhile, I'll give a shot at it. Although the idea itself (feats that grant you magic) didn't struck me as bad in the first place, the following thought has come up with me. In the 3.5 edition there are lots of ways to accomplish this, multiclassing, PrC's, etc. So I don't think yet another way to do this is that useful, although I must admit that picking a feat is a rather easy way to add a magic touch to your character. But, I'm afraid you'll have a bit of a style mix up. The thing is that the ways presented make sure that a character gets spellcasting abilities in a kind of realistic way (I know, I'm one of the guys that thinks realism exists in D&D and I'm sure there are a lot of people who don't think realism belongs there, but hey, just my opinion ;)). The prestige classes (or the multiclassing) give a character his spellcasting abilities in flavor and the feats won't be flavorful I fear. Besides, although 3.5 is ideal for diversification of characters, I still believe that a party has its base concepts (fighter, cleric, rogue & wizard) and that somehow a fighter that gives up its fighting capabilities to do a little wizardry (sp?) is not a big asset to the party. The wizard excels at this, while the fighter is going to bog at it, and at the same time is bogging down its own fighting capacities. Now this whole argument is only my opinion, so don't hold back if you think it is a good idea and go for it. Just my thoughts. Have fun!
CuttinCurt 04-18-07, 04:24 PM	As far as feats allowing you to cast some cantrips. These feats are called, Communicator, Insightful, Necropolis Born, Night Haunt, Soul of the North, and Spell Hand. They allow (3) spells to be cast 1/day each as spell like abilities. As you can see by the names of these feats, they are themed based. And they are more than just cantrips (0-lvl spells.) Communicator allows: mark, message, and comprehend languages Insightful allows: detect magic, detect secret doors, and read magic Necropolis Born allows: cause fear, ghost sound, and touch of fatigue Night Haunt allows: dancing lights, unseen servant, and prestigination Soul of the north allows: chill touch, ray of frost, and resistance spell hand allows: mage hand, tensers floating disk, and open/close This will give you a good power level on what your feats should give. CC
Mock26 04-18-07, 06:13 PM	There is always the possibility of simply sticking with 1st/2nd edition and incorporating those aspects of 3.0/3.5 that you like. There are still a large number of people out there who play the older versions of D&D. Just remember that throughout all the years the letters D and D have not changed. It matters not if you play Basic, 1st Edition, 2nd Edtion, Version 3.0, Version 3.5, or any hybrid of any of these. What matters is that you are playing D&D!
celtredleg 04-19-07, 12:38 AM	Many of the missing monsters are most likely in the Tome of Horors, by Necromancer games. They did a lot of the old ones that did not make the jump. There are also web sites wioth monster conversions already done for you. Some smart person can probably link you. I went form 1st ed to 3.5 wothout to much trouble.
bartleby42 04-19-07, 02:15 AM	----Feats in order to have minor magical ability Lucky for you they already exist. In the Complete Arcane, and a few others I think, there are several feats that allow for 2-3 0-level spells (cantrips) 1-3/day and occasionly a 1st level spell once a day. They are grouped by theme, and tend to be both useful and completely useless at the same time. Wonderful, wonderful feats. ----Worring that PrCs are taking over kits I understand the gut reaction of "A theif-acrobat is an entire progression, not levels 10-20!" but when you think of the sillier examples, like thief acrobat you start to loosen up. The bladesinger was one that almost gave me a heart attack, how can it be quite a neat and flavorful it not only you need to be level 10 to get in, but you don't even have the full bladesong at level 15! What it does do though, is balance out the power level, considerably. So many of my 2nd ed games started with a few powerhouses (A palidin who was lucky enough to qualify for the samuri kit is memorable) and a theif who quickly became 2~4 levels higher then the rest of the party. Sure the "tough" classes advanced slower, but it still wasn't fair. Those who had bad rolls at charecter creation were punished over and over again for them. Not only did they not have as many abilities, they couldn't qualify for any kits, and then they gained less XP. In 3.X, this doesn't happen. Everyone starts out (more or less) even, and it stays pretty close to even through all 20 levels. The first time you find that PrCs/multiclassing is overpowered, I'll bet you that your PC has just figured out how to make the most of the new system. Just ride out that one bump and then the parties powerlevel will even out.
Etarnon 04-19-07, 09:48 AM	I personally prefer 2nd ed. I don't like all the new changes. At all. But if you are going to do 3rd ed, scrap everything from 2nd and start from scratch. Build the best PC you can within 3rd ed. Good luck.
Malraux 04-19-07, 10:59 AM	I'd recommend to play 3rd edition without modifying the rules too much at first. Some of the rules interact in not obvious ways that can cause problems if you change them too quickly. In addition to the feat mentioned earlier that give some casting ability, Eberron has some feats that give dragonmarks, which give the player spell like abilities.
The Ubbergeek 04-19-07, 11:10 AM	I recommend just moving ahead and starting anew - instead of trying to remake the world, take your old ideas and use the new rules as bases - the system is so different and much better at the end.
Oreot 04-19-07, 02:23 PM	Yes tome of horrors is great, there is a revised 3.5 edition that is pdf only on the Necromancer site: http://www.necromancergames.com/products.html Also you can find alot of good conversions here: http://www.enworld.org/cc/